@caissad4said You should have followed my search suggestion then you would not have made that erroneous first statement.
Spend ten minutes looking at my suggestion.
Oh, I've looked at small internet blurbs about this stuff before. There's never any details other than some vague description and some random case examples with a few details.
Got something different?
And you don't understand what I said:
How can you prove it is a thousand year tradition among people who you cannot prove existed, let alone existed in their current form, a thousand years ago.
@fmfsaid Or, maybe he's trying to engage in debate and discussion with you on a debate and discussion forum. He's trying to "shut up a Christian"?? What's with all these glass-chinned religionists we have here in this community?
Oh, but you are assuming that I am not just rubbing it on him that he is a non-Christian clinging to an interpretation of convenience.
@suziannesaid What about passages in the Old Testament which advise stoning for adulterers? Isn't this addressed by Jesus himself in John 8, when he tells the adulterous woman, "Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more."
As I said the first time I brought this up a page ago, you apparently do not care that we are now under a different covenant than the Jews, we are told i ...[text shortened]... . Maybe you can find the courage to address this now on page seven when you ignored it on page six.
Yeah, he says sin no more in that pericope whose veracity is commonly doubted.
He did not say continue in adultery. He said sin no more.
This would seem to jive with the fact that homosexuality is repeatedly conedmned in the New Testament, just as adultery is, and that passage would tell us clearly...
While Old Testament laws are not to be punished with Old Testament means, the moral basis of these laws was not incorrect.
@fmfsaid And you believe he was trying to "shut up a Christian"? You don't see it as him merely contributing a perspective you disagree with?
The guy who just said I was "mewling" doesn't understand the nature of hyperbolic rhetoric.
But I am not frustrated.
This is what you are famous for doing, FMF.
When you say someone is mewling it is just regular, expressive conversation, but when I claim someone is trying to 'shut us up' in some part of the covnersation, it is a sticking point suddenly.
This is bad faith posting, bruh. Very bad faith. Very poor form.
@philokaliasaid When you say someone is mewling it is just regular, expressive conversation, but when I claim someone is trying to 'shut us up' in some part of the covnersation, it is a sticking point suddenly.
You really think he was trying to "shut up a Christian"? I thought he was just expressing a dissenting view.
"Mewling" is what people do when they pretend rather pathetically to be the victim of something and it's just bogus. The notion that Ghost of a Duke was trying "shut up a Christian" is bogus.
sonship does the same thing all the time 'oh you're trying to close me down oh you're trying to silence me oh you're trying to shut me down'. And there are others too. No atheists here do it. None of them. Why do so many Christians have such glass chins?
@fmfsaid You really think he was trying to "shut up a Christian"? I thought he was just expressing a dissenting view.
"Mewling" is what people do when they pretend rather pathetically to be the victim of something and it's just bogus. The notion that Ghost of a Duke was trying "shut up a Christian" is bogus.
sonship does the same thing all the time 'oh you're trying to close me do ...[text shortened]... e others too. No atheists here do it. None of them. Why do so many Christians have such glass chins?
Oh really?
Did I sound like a victim when I said:
Oh, so we have Ghost of a Duke, who is not a Christian, trying to cherrypick and use parts of the Bible to shut up a Christian.
How about some other passages?:
I was just hitting back.
I don't have to explain why I picked my words; and you don't have to explain why you picked "Mewling."
This is a bloody normal interaction.
And no one went too far or anything.
But your language policing is making the thread stupid.
You felt a non-Christian was "hitting" you? Gosh. OK, you are obviously feeling a bit besieged and paranoid. So I will say this: if Ghost of a Duke comes along and indicates that he DID quote Ephesians 4:2 and Romans 14:1-4 in order to try to stop you from posting or he was trying to curtail your right to express yourself in some way, I will stand corrected and apologize to you.